D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

okay, but it is still forcing (if save fails) you to feel a fake connection, and unlike time/skill (aka acutally becoming a friendly aquintence) you loose it after an amount of time,
Right. You're dazzled by their Hollywood glamour for a moment, but later you realise it might not actually have been wise to loan your car to this random person.

and in the case of friends they not only know but it says they WILL become hostil after.
Yeah, that is super weird. Why it is 'will' and not 'might'? Is there no option for them not minding it?

I don't see how a 9th level rogue ability (I think the only one) is any different then a 1st level spell. either way, even if we build in an exception for the rogue (I don't know why but to just for sake of argument)
I mean because the assumption is that the rogue ability is not magic. It is just the character being naturally super charming and likeable.

the charm spell itself still is at the very least a murky subject (and I would say an evil act)
Sure.

And frankly, I would prefer if the way it works would be more explicitly spelled out. Is the target's mind magically addled, or is the caster's persuasion magically boosted? (Sort of targeted illusion.) Whilst the latter could still be somewhat questionable, it to me would be far less problematic than the former.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Remathilis

Legend
Pushing someone out of your way could be defined thus, but no one considers it assault, much less rape.
A decade of working in high school education tells me that yes, pushing someone out your way can be considered both. Don't believe me? Try to break up a fight between two students opposite your gender and see what accusations you open yourself up to.

The thrust of my argument remains though; most magic spells cannot be used as intended as a "good" act, unless you consider violence of some type or another a good act. I don't believe charm spells are alone in this, I in fact would say most spells are equally alarming, if for different ethical or moral reasons.
 

The knowledge of how to fight isn’t evil. Weapons aren’t evil. Physical violence does not, outside of nitpicky edge cases, rob anyone of their fundamental self. “What about stabbing people with magical lasers” doesn’t change the argument at all.
What it sounds like to me is that you value personal mental autonomy over the physical condition of your body, such that a person threatening the one in any capacity is always evil whilst a person threatening the other may not be. Is that accurate?
 

HammerMan

Legend
Right. You're dazzled by their Hollywood glamour for a moment, but later you realise it might not actually have been wise to loan your car to this random person.
through magical force that broke through your will power...
Yeah, that is super weird. Why it is 'will' and not 'might'? Is there no option for them not minding it?
I assume it is becuse it is a violation and it would be A HUGE execption for someone not to care.

I mean because the assumption is that the rogue ability is not magic. It is just the character being naturally super charming and likeable.
okay I said for the sake of argument carve it out...
Sure.

And frankly, I would prefer if the way it works would be more explicitly spelled out. Is the target's mind magically addled, or is the caster's persuasion magically boosted? (Sort of targeted illusion.) Whilst the latter could still be somewhat questionable, it to me would be far less problematic than the former.
 

A decade of working in high school education tells me that yes, pushing someone out your way can be considered both. Don't believe me? Try to break up a fight between two students opposite your gender and see what accusations you open yourself up to.

The thrust of my argument remains though; most magic spells cannot be used as intended as a "good" act, unless you consider violence of some type or another a good act. I don't believe charm spells are alone in this, I in fact would say most spells are equally alarming, if for different ethical or moral reasons.
so I am right that all things are sort of evil in dnd and thus that arguments are futile as what is good is what is not harming people in any way devisable?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't know for sure... I have some ideas.

something like "We think of physical force, but the idea of mental force is a fantasy aspect of the game. remember when you use charm/enchanment/mind effects you are performing mental violence's and mentally violating the target. "
I don't know I don't get paid to write the books, I am sure that we can find someone to write something better.

Edit: I almost forgot... I think WoTc SHOULD take a stance, this is not a neutral idea, forcing someone to do your will is pretty dark... and playing 'the voice' or 'jedi mind trick' or 'charm person' as anything less then a violation of other seems weird to me... but we do violat others all the time in games...
I don't think this will fly somehow.

They tried putting sidebars regarding the occult in some 2e stuff to placate the Satanic-panic crowd and that was little better than a joke. This may end up being seen in a similar light by enough people to not really make it worthwhile.

Sidebars regarding violence in the game (a far bigger issue/non-issue IMO) would similarly fall on deaf ears.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
But name me one instance of mind control being used for legitimate good.
Isn't or wasn't hypnotic therapy (a form of mind control) used to attempt to change the thoughts and-or mind patterns of the criminally insane, in order to make them less so?

If yes, there's your instance.
 


through magical force that broke through your will power...
But if you're an NPC, how is this different from the PC succeeding in a persuasion check against you?

I assume it is becuse it is a violation and it would be A HUGE execption for someone not to care.
But no other spell has such stipulation. Charm person doesn't say that, nor do the more blatant mind affecting spells. It is just weird, like the target was first magicked to be friendly and them magicked to be angry...
 


Remathilis

Legend
so I am right that all things are sort of evil in dnd and thus that arguments are futile as what is good is what is not harming people in any way devisable?
There is good magical effects: there is nothing inherently questionable about healing magic, protection magic, noninvasive divination (ie augury), certain transmutation like fly or expeditious retreat, benign spells like light or creation spells like create water or fabricate. They are the hammers that can be used wrongly, but with used correctly are beneficial to people. This is compared against a spell like charm, hold or detect thoughts where even even used for noble cause, the spells effect are themselves problematic. There is argument as to whether such uses can be justified, but the action itself is never benign.

D&D magic is overwhelming in that latter category.
 

Galandris

Foggy Bottom Campaign Setting Fan
Granted, paladins aren't always good-aligned in this edition, but one would expect that the designers wouldn't include a spell on the paladin's spell list that would cause a good-aligned character to become an oath breaker simply by virtue of casting it.
There are accounts of an instance of a god who put a couple near a tree bearing appetizing fruits hanging low and yet didn't want the couple to eat them.

However, I agree with you that tools are not good or evil. They are tools. Much like the Paladin's Holy Avenger is, despite seldom being used as a farming implement.
 

HammerMan

Legend
no, I am suggesting ALL action from magic to swords is evil and thus these are discussions in pointlessness.
and I am suggesting that to a degree you are right, from sword to spell is pretty evil. sometimes we use evil to fight evil. We can all pick what hill (what we want called out) to die on (we will keep posting about). MY discussion my post is about MY HILL TO DIE ON, charm and other like effects, not everything else (although I did say 9/10th of the phb could be seen as evil)
 

HammerMan

Legend
But if you're an NPC, how is this different from the PC succeeding in a persuasion check against you?
becuse instead of talking the PC forced his magical will onto my NPC...
But no other spell has such stipulation. Charm person doesn't say that, nor do the more blatant mind affecting spells. It is just weird, like the target was first magicked to be friendly and them magicked to be angry...
I assume being a 0th level spell it is the least able to hold out that anger so it always happens where the others it is up to DM/player
 

HammerMan

Legend
There is good magical effects: there is nothing inherently questionable about healing magic, protection magic, noninvasive divination (ie augury), certain transmutation like fly or expeditious retreat, benign spells like light or creation spells like create water or fabricate. They are the hammers that can be used wrongly, but with used correctly are beneficial to people. This is compared against a spell like charm, hold or detect thoughts where even even used for noble cause, the spells effect are themselves problematic. There is argument as to whether such uses can be justified, but the action itself is never benign.

D&D magic is overwhelming in that latter category.
good list... I may have over stated the 9/10 but not by much, Maybe we should start a post on GOOD things
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Isn't or wasn't hypnotic therapy (a form of mind control) used to attempt to change the thoughts and-or mind patterns of the criminally insane, in order to make them less so?

If yes, there's your instance.
Hypnosis... by trained therapists who (in many countries and states) are regulated by the government and is used typically with other types of therapy as well, not alone, on consenting patients ...and which may just be a placebo affect thing anyway, or a type of meditation. It's not movie-style mind control, since nobody can actually agree what hypnosis is or does anyway.

I can't find anything on using it to change the thoughts of the "criminally insane" anywhere, and I doubt it would work on anyone who wasn't willing to try--if it even works at all. Wikipedia lists hypnotherapy as an alternative medicine, along with crystals and phrenology.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
So even if the terminology isn't accurate, is it fair to call them "evil"? I mean magic missile is literally assault and serves no other function but for assault with intent to injure or kill.

I think the 9/10ths of the PHB spells are either illegal, immoral or unethical to use, regardless of rationale for it's use, is a safe statement.
I personally don't think that hold person or blindness/deafness are capital-e Evil spells. For starters, they are almost invariably used as combat spells, when it's kill-or-be-killed and the PCs are in battle against (hopefully) proven bad guys. Charm, suggestion, and other enchantment spells, however, have a bad habit of being used out-of-combat, though, and either as a time-saver (instead of RPing conversation while trying to persuade someone to do something they don't want to do) or for... disturbing reasons.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Why? There's literally no way to stop them that isn't some sort of violation. Why is it evil to stop evil?
As I told someone else, this BS edgecase dilemma argument is not useful and I won’t engage with it.

Also, violence isn’t inherently evil, and is not a “violation”. Violation, here, refers to rape.

Tackling someone is not inherently violating them. Controlling their mind is.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top